- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10686 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANAPPA D S/O. DODDABATTIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/1/1, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. PERMANENT AND PRESENT ADDRESS ARE SAME. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJU T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GOVINDARAJANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPTD. BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MUNILAKSHMI D/O. RAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.4, 4TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE PETITION. b) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.930/2024 ARISING OUT OF Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 CR.NO.377/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 354, 506, 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE XXIV ACMM COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC.No.930/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with 34 of IPC arising out of Crime No.377/2023 registered by the respondent - Police, which is pending before the XXIV Additional C.M.M Court, Bengaluru. 2. Respondent No.2 – complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that despite the vacation of the interim injunction which was earlier operating in favour of the accused in O.S.No.8179/2022, the petitioner and his father, within two days of such vacation, trespassed into the construction site, physically abused and manhandled her and further outraged her modesty. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 3. On the basis of the said complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a criminal case came to be registered and the matter was entrusted to the jurisdictional police for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid a charge sheet against the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced elaborate submissions by drawing attention of this Court to the interim order granted by the Trial Court in the pending civil suit. He would point out that respondent No.2, who was restrained by way of an injunction not to put up any construction, continued to remain bound by the said order for almost nine months. It is his submission that no complaint of the present nature was lodged during the subsistence of the injunction. However, immediately upon vacation of the injunction, respondent No.2 has, according to him, sought to misuse the situation and has filed a false complaint with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner and his family. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further emphasize that even the aged father of the petitioner was initially arrayed as an accused on the basis of the allegations, but the Investigating Officer, upon due investigation, found the allegations against him to be false and accordingly, dropped his name. Nevertheless, despite the petitioner not having visited the disputed site in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings, a charge sheet has been filed against him without there being any credible material. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the charge sheet papers, this Court is of the view that though the grounds urged by the petitioner appear attractive at the first blush, the materials placed on record by the Investigating Agency do disclose the existence of some prima-facie material warranting a trial. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has misused the vacation of the interim injunction order and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 has concocted a false case is a matter that requires appreciation of evidence, which can only be undertaken during the course of a full-fledged trial. The petitioner would be at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence in support of his contention and to demonstrate before the Trial Court that the complaint is a motivated one and is filed as an abuse of process of law. 7. At this stage, without delving into the merits of the rival contentions, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that the charge sheet records indicate the presence of two eyewitnesses who have supported the version of respondent No.2 and have attributed specific overt acts to the petitioner. In the light of such material, it cannot be said that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 8. The issue of delay in lodging the complaint, as strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also a matter which squarely falls within the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34046 CRL.P No. 10686 of 2025 realm of defence, and the same has to be tested during trial on appreciation of evidence. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking discharge before the Trial Court in accordance with law, if he is so advised. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14